Reading about Goska’s ideas on political paralysis made me think of many topics we talk about in my political science class. Most namely the emergence and effects of political polarization. I think the paralysis is an effect of the polarization. More often it is become “mandatory” for legislators to vote along party lines. Compromise with the other party is seen as weak and traitorous. This form of thought makes it virtually impossible to pass bipartisan bills and is detrimental for the public because change is becoming harder and harder to initiate. Steps toward fluidity among parties would make it much easier for the government to take action. If the polarization in our government continues to grow, I believe one party (most likely whoever has the presidency) will dominate Capitol Hill, making the voice of the minority party unheard.

Once this happens, as Zinn describes, the people/party will be able to control the narrative. Dorner’s systems theory is virtually impossible to execute at this point, as views and rules are pretty much only produced by the single party. The more I lay this scenario out, the more it sounds like some sort of dictatorship, but that is what a single- ideology government produces. In that case, the political competition we have is important in preserving our democracy, but the polarization is much more detrimental than common competition.